A. Whether it can be viewed to the effect that the value of evidence should be rejected, even if the rejection of evidence inconsistent with the facts admitted is not clearly indicated (affirmative)

B. Whether the adoption of the natural father as an adoption of the birth report instead of the adoption report after the adoption agreement was entered into (affirmative)

C. Whether the existing adoptive parent relationship has ceased to exist solely with the fact that a third party has been actually considered to have been adopted (negative)

A. Even if the evidence does not clearly state the purport that it goes against the recognized facts and rejected it, it shall not be deemed that the value of the evidence is rejected.

B. At the time of the birth report as the father’s father’s father’s mother’s child, the Joseon Civil Decree was applied, and the adoption cannot take effect upon the birth report as above.

C. It cannot be deemed that the adoptive parent relationship between the adoptive parent and the respondent, which was immediately established, has been considered as having been adopted by both departments as the adoption of a third party at both departments A.

A. Articles 187 and 193(2) of the Civil Procedure Act; b. Article 878 of the Civil Act; c. Article 898 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Da3198 decided Mar. 8, 198 (Gong1983,646) 91Da14192 decided Feb. 25, 1992 (Gong1992,118) 92Da21104,21111 decided Sep. 14, 1992 (Gong1992,283) b. Supreme Court Decision 77Da492 decided Jul. 26, 197 (Gong197,10219) 89Meu1108 decided Jul. 27, 1990 (Gong190,1791) 91Meu153 decided Dec. 13, 1991 (Gong192,517)

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 2 others

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 1 other

Seoul High Court Decision 90Reu3683 delivered on May 19, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the claimant.

The First and Second Grounds for Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that: (a) as the deceased non-party 1 did not have a son and her wife five or more, the deceased non-party 1 did not have a son and the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 3 was his wife, and (b) the deceased non-party 3 did not have a son and the deceased non-party 4 as her wife; (c) in consideration of the defendant's future, the defendant decided to report the birth as her husband and her husband and 2 on February 17, 1940; (d) the defendant raised 1 mother and 4, and the defendant did not appear to have a little degree of relationship between the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1, and (d) the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1 had a claim between the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1 and six (6).

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just and there is no error of law in violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as argued in the theory of lawsuit.

The evidence Nos. 12-2 and No. 13-2 cited by the theory of lawsuit cannot be deemed to be in conflict with the above recognized facts by the court below, and the above evidence is in conflict with the facts admitted by the court below, and even if the court below did not state the purport of rejecting it, this does not mean that the court below rejected the value of evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da2104, 2111, Sept. 14, 192). Thus, the court below did not err in the above measures.

In addition, the adoption cannot take effect by the above birth report of the respondent, on the ground that the above birth report of the respondent was applied at the time of the above birth report of the respondent (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Da492 delivered on July 26, 197). Since it is obvious that the court below rejected the claimant's assertion with the same purport, there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles or the omission of judgment as to this point in the judgment of the court below. All arguments are without merit.

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 decided to dissolve the defendant around 1943 and that the non-party 1 adopted the non-party 6 to the network and adopted the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 to the network as new adoption, so it is difficult to recognize that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 agreed to dissolve the defendant as the dissolution of the adoptive relation between the defendant and the defendant 1 and the non-party 2. It is not reasonable to recognize that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 agreed to dissolve the defendant. Since the non-party 1's non-party 1 had been considered as the de facto adoption from 1943 to 1943, it cannot be deemed that the adoptive relation between the defendant 1, 2 and the non-party 1 and the defendant was extinguished. In light of the records, the above fact finding and judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the rules of evidence or the termination of adoptive relationship.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)